Slashdot Mirror
Google Blocks 'Innocence of Muslim' Video In Indonesia and India
hypnosec writes "Google has blocked the anti-Islamic video, which was posted on YouTube, in Indonesia as well as India. YouTube has already denied a complete removal of the clip 'Innocence of Muslims' that mocks Islam and Prophet Mohammed. The video has led to protests and violence across the Arab world. The foreign ministry spokesperson of Indonesia and India have confirmed that Google has blocked access to the video. Indonesia has also asked RIM to filter the video on its smartphones."
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Pass it around, Free Mohammad.
"Muslim world rising against America" is your shock doctrine for this election, please vote accordingly and against your own interests.
Don't understand. If anything your remark only supports the point that companies should comply with the law.
England already has Sharia courts.
This is technically true but grossly misleading: England also already has Jewish courts. They have exactly the same standing, which is they have no standing in law. They operate purely where the plaintiffs agree to abide by their judgement. Really, they are no different from say two people going to a mutual friend and asking the friend to adjudicate on a disagreement.
"Frankly, these provocations won't help anyone."
I agree that the Mohammed film in question is terrible. But it does address some important issues with Islam. And that will help us non-believers in the long run. For example the issue of child marriage. Aisha, one of Mohammeds wifes were 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. And we should of course (also as non-muslims) be free to debate if that is behaviour befitting for a prophet. Another example is the glorification of violence against non-muslims. At least as long as the main schools of Islam argue that the behaviour of Mohammed is perfect and should form an ideal guideline on how muslims should live in the 21st century.
Another point is that this film is only one pearl in a series of incidents where muslims are threatening fellow muslims or non-muslims over perceived blasphemy. The last example was a documentary on Channel 4 (examining the historical roots of Islam) where a planning screening was cancelled due to threats to the historian behind the film:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/channel-4-cancels-controversial-screening-of-islam-the-untold-story-documentary-after-presenter-tom-holland-is-threatened-8125641.html
Wow. That was a little harsh? In case you haven't realized this, there are groups, right here in America, that do that sort of thing too - boycotting books, TV shows, movies, or anything that has content they don't agree with. Why was it necessary for the bigoted slur on Muslims?
Typical Muslim equivocation. Other groups boycotting stores means that it is OK to drag people out of embassies, torture, and murder them. "We are just doing what those Catholics who said 'don't buy the davinci code' did'". I say no it is not the same, if Muslims said "don't watch youtube" then I would not have a problem with it. Its because they react in their traditional manner of killing, rioting, etc.
I found this condemnation of the current riots within 30 seconds of searching. http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=501
I'm certain you'd find similar condemnations for the cartoons episode, if you looked.
England already has Sharia courts.
Please stop repeating this crap. You might be able to dump a village elder in a local community centre and pretend it is a court but it carries no legal weight. The only way it can work is if both parties decide to forgo their normal entitlement to a real legal court and agree to an independent tribunal with no legal weight.
England does not have sharia courts with and legal weight. Just because some dickhead can sit in a room and pretend it is a court does not mean it carries and legal weight. If I do not like what a Sharia court says it has no legal right to force me into it unless a real court also agrees following normal legal precedent.
England does not have Sharia courts with any legal standing.
I dont read
You realise, I hope, that The Life Of Brian was the subject of many protests (albeit not violent as far as I know), and was banned in many places?
You are entitled to free speech, but in most civilised countries, there is a line drawn between free speech, and incitement.
In the United States, the relevant case law is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Under this interpretation of the First Amendment, speech can only be banned if it is intended to incite "imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so. The classic case would be the leader of an angry mob telling them to attack or kill someone. Does the Innocence of Muslims video qualify? Almost certainly not. While Nakoula may well have intended it to rile up the Islamic community in the US and overseas, it did not pose an imminent threat of lawless action. The reactions of hostile third parties cannot be used as a justification to prohibit free speech; as the Supreme Court put it in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), there is "no heckler's veto".
The innocence of muslims has crossed that line by a very long distance indeed, and imho, it's on a par with Westboro Baptist Church turning up to protest at a dead soldiers funeral. [...] The people who created the video should not be able to hide behind the claim of 'free speech'. It isn't free speech, it's hate speech plain and simple.
The WBC protests are also protected free speech in the United States under the First Amendment. You mentioned that you are posting from the UK, so one thing that may be confusing you is that in the US, there is no such legal category as "hate speech". It's all protected by the Constitution. The idea is that if you allowed the government to decide that certain speech was "hate speech" and suppress it, there would be a slippery slope that would inevitably lead to the repression of open and free political discourse.
dhimma is a form where you are put into a lower class, receive less legal and other rights, are TOLD that you are INFERIOR to the 'master race' (yes, I used that wording on purpose) and your lands and rights could be snapped away at a moment's notice if you displease the rulers or religious folks.
ie, just a notch above slavery.
nice, huh?
btw, they see ALL of us as being in this role sooner or later.
religion of pieces, indeed.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."